WEST
v.
TOWN OF JUPITER ISLAND
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the plaintiff's continued litigation after the Maynard decision rendered the action frivolous, justifying an award of attorneys' fees and costs to the prevailing defendant.
The plaintiff's disability harassment and wrongful termination action was litigated for 1.5 years before summary judgment was granted for the defendan…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Wrongful Termination cases and more on FLexlaw
neys’ Fees and Costs, filed on May 3, 2001 (D.E.#82). In response to this court’s Omnibus Order Granting Defendant’s Emergency Motion for Reconsideration of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Plaintiffs Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (D.E.#79), and in conjunction with Local Rule 7.3, defendant has moved this court for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred while defending the instant action.
In reviewing the file, this court notes that the action has been actively litigated for approximately lié years. Ultimately, this court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, after finding that plaintiffs action could no longer be supported in light of the requirements enunciated by the Eleventh Circuit in
Maynard v. Pneumatic Products Corp.,
233 F. 3d 1344 (11th Cir.2000). This court finds that instead of recognizing the action could no longer be maintained in light of
Maynard,
plaintiff continued to litigate the matter instead of seeking voluntary dismissal. It was only after defendant reopened plaintiffs deposition that plaintiff, apparently unable to comply with this court’s Order Requiring Comparative Evidence (D.E.# 73), finally moved for dismissal — some four months after the
Maynard
decision.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 12205, the court has discretion to allow the prevailing party in this disability harassment and wrongful termination action a reasonable attorney’s fee, including litigation expenses and costs. The Eleventh Circuit recently adopted the
Christianburg
standard for assessing attorney fees under the ADA. See Bruce v. City of Gainesville, Georgia,
177 F. 3d 949 (11th Cir.1999). The
Christianburg
standard, a method of awarding prevailing party fees under Title VII, recognizes that a prevailing plaintiff should ordinarily be awarded attorney’s fees, but a prevailing defendant should recover fees only “upon a finding that the plaintiffs action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, even though not brought in subjective bad faith.”
Christianburg Garment Co. v. EEOC,
434 U.S. 412, 98 S.Ct. 694, 54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978).
In considering defendant’s motion, the court has reviewed the history of this case, and notes that plaintiff
may
have had a viable action up and until the pronouncement issued by
Maynard
on November 22, 2000. After the
Maynard
decision was announced, plaintiffs action was without foundation in the law. Had plaintiff taken the initiative and sought a voluntary dismissal upon learning of the
Maynard
pronouncement, this court would be disinclined to award fees. However, plaintiff maintained the action up and until he realized he could not cooperate with the court’s instruction to provide evidence of how his impairments restrict major life activities
compared to the general population,
as required by
Maynard.
Thus, this court finds that an award of fees is appropriate under the
Christianburg
standard, since plaintiff continued this action well after any legal foundation for the action was dissipated by
Maynard.
Accordingly, this court will award defendant, prevailing party, attorneys’ fees and costs incurred after November 22, 2000 (the date of the
Maynard
decision).
The court has reviewed the submission of fees and costs contained in Defendant’s Motion.
1
Using defendant’s submission as
*1304
a guide, and finding the asserted fees and costs therein
2
to be reasonable, including the hourly rates for all legal personnel, the court awards defendant the following costs and fees:
Costs Fees Sub-Total
Nov. 23, 2000-Nov. 30, 2000 109.00 519.50 628.50
December 2000 290.02 11,483.50 11,773.52
January 2001 3,353.49 22,462.00 25,815.49
February 2001 1,245.36 1,337.50 2,582.86
March 2001 122.54 3,976.50 4,099.04
TOTAL $44,899.41
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Verified Motion to Tax Attorneys’ Fees and Costs is GRANTED IN PART. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that defendant is hereby awarded forty-four thousand, eight hundred ninety-nine dollars and forty-one cents ($44,899.41) as the prevailing party in the instant action.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n, 434 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1978)
- Bruce v. City OF Gainesville, 177 F.3d 949 (11th Cir. 1999)
- Maynard v. Pneumatic Prods. Corp., 233 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2000)